New Mac-quad core or 8 core for youth club studio...

Hi there.
I have some money to kit out a studio in a youth club. I'm going the Mac route and Logic pro will be one of the programs we run. Once ive spent the cash thats it, so I'm hoping to go as powerful as possible.
I am looking at the new Nehalem quad core and 8 core models. At first I was going to opt for the 8 core (this may seem like overkill for a youth club, but I have worked with them for some years and we finally have a chance to get some really tasty kit!), but then I read the following article that suggested on paper that the 2.66ghz quad core is actually faster than the 2.26ghz 8 core;
http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html
I have been trying to find out if Logic Pro is a program that can make use of the extra cores. I am guessing not, but have not been able to find confirmation on this.
Question is, for longevity and a super fast machine, what would you recommend. I could get a slightly faster quad core than the base unit, but I am guessing in the future to go up to 8 core, you would need a completely new machine pretty much rather than upgradeing. I have mostly been a PC user, so these top end macs are a bit new to me.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Many thanks
Smoulders

I disagree that Logic fully uses all 8 cores (16 including the hyperthreading cores). Logic seems to max out at 8 threads, and it is able to take advantage of hyperthread cores. The result of this is that while it uses 8 cores on an octo machine, it also uses 8 cores on a quad machine (4 cores plus 4 HT cores), and the difference between the two is considerably less than it should be.
Hopefully soon there will be a version of Logic that uses 16 threads and takes advantage of HT on the octo machines, but in the meantime, much of the available CPU power is going unused. An octo can max out at 1600% cpu use, but logic is lucky to make it to 400%. It can reach that same level on a quad core i7. Same goes for Logic benchmarks, the difference in actual processing power isn't much, especially if the quad is at a higher clock speed.
Anyone who has an 8 core machine can test this, there's a Processor control panel that lets you disable cores (or hyperthreading). If you disable four cores, it will just use the hyperthreading cores instead with only a minimal loss of CPU power in Logic.

Similar Messages

Should I upgrade my Power Mac quad core 2.66 or go for a new(er) machine?

I have a 2009 Power Mac, quad core 2.66 ghz, 6GB RAM, OS 10.6.8 and primarily run graphic apps (Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, etc.) for Graphic Design projects and Photography. I've begun to run into sites that want newer versions of Safari and am thinking I should upgrade for security purposes. Firefox won't load (crashes machine), can't upgrade Flash-- wondering if it's time to upgrade OS but when I look at the latest version it won't run on the machine.
I've read where I can purchase a new graphic card and then "hack" the system to run the latest OSX but am wondering, after all is said and done with costs would I just be better off getting a new(er) machine (maybe a powerbook i7)? Would the performance be about the same? I love my Power Mac (the inside is so perfectly designed) and, aside from the browser issues it generally does everything I need. graphic cards that are recommended don't seem to be in production any longer and those that are listed retail for around $350-$500. A RAM boost (extra 16GB for $200) and even a processor upgrade from OWC (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnkey/MacPro/2010_Xeon_Processor) ($500-$600) and conceivably I could run this machine into the ground.
Thank you for any thoughts or insights.

Ah, this is why one should not post late at night with little sleep. Thank you all for the answers and kind responses of help.
Very good suggestion to reinstall the system and I shall do so. I believe this is the MacPro forum, is it not? Should I still repost? I used everymac.com to determine my system BUT posted the results incorrectly (corrected below and yes, it is a 2006). My apologies. I ran the software that THE HATTER suggested and have the results below. I'm not opposed to spending money to either upgrade or purchase a new(er) machine-- simply looking to spend the money necessary wisely for the best possible return. Thank you again for the help.
ETRECHECK:
(I'm only posting part of this-- I don't know if there's a posting limit or protocol on posting). I am running CS5
Hardware Information: ℹ️
Mac Pro (Verified)
Mac Pro - model: MacPro1,1
2 2.66 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon CPU: 4-core
6 GB RAM
DIMM Riser A/DIMM 1
2 GB DDR2 FB-DIMM 667 MHz ok
DIMM Riser A/DIMM 2
2 GB DDR2 FB-DIMM 667 MHz ok
DIMM Riser B/DIMM 1
512 MB DDR2 FB-DIMM 667 MHz ok
DIMM Riser B/DIMM 2
512 MB DDR2 FB-DIMM 667 MHz ok
DIMM Riser A/DIMM 3
512 MB DDR2 FB-DIMM 667 MHz ok
DIMM Riser A/DIMM 4
512 MB DDR2 FB-DIMM 667 MHz ok
DIMM Riser B/DIMM 3
empty empty empty empty
DIMM Riser B/DIMM 4
empty empty empty empty
Bluetooth: Old - Handoff/Airdrop2 not supported
Video Information: ℹ️
ATY,RadeonX1900 - VRAM: 512 MB
VX2336 SERIES 1920 x 1080 @ 60 Hz
hp f1703 1280 x 960 @ 75 Hz
System Software: ℹ️
Mac OS X 10.6.8 (10K549) - Uptime: 89 days 2:15:37
Disk Information: ℹ️
WDC WD2500AAJS-41RYA0 disk0 : (232.89 GB)
- (disk0s1) <not mounted> : 210 MB
Macintosh HD (disk0s2) / : 249.72 GB (18.35 GB free)
Hitachi HDT725050VLA360 disk2 : (465.76 GB)
- (disk2s1) <not mounted> : 210 MB
500GB (disk2s2) /Volumes/500GB : 499.76 GB (92.11 GB free)
WDC WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0 disk1 : (931.51 GB)
- (disk1s1) <not mounted> : 210 MB
1TB Drive (disk1s2) /Volumes/1TB Drive : 999.86 GB (760.73 GB free)

New I7 quad-core takes longer to boot up than old imac?

Just got my new I7 quad-core last night. (Looks gorgeous, by the way.) Transferred everything over from my old 24" 2.33GHz iMac.... all is well, only had one app hiccup so far (had to reinstall iTunes for some reason).
Anyway, did a side-by-side startup this morning, and the old iMac basically kicked the new one's butt - it started up about 50% faster.
Does this seem right? Is there a reason the new iMac, running basically the same exact system with same apps, preferences, etc, would take longer to boot up?

i think the new one was rebooting from a bootable backup i had created. changed that in startup disc settings... seems faster rebooting now.
and i transferred everything over via migration assistant (allowed it to move everything upon my first startup when it asked if i wanted to transfer data from another mac)....

Pointer jumps all over the screen erratically on new MacPro Quad Core

I just powered up my new MacPro Quad Core Xeon for the first time today. For the monitor, my new Viewsonic VG2230. I noticed that my new mighty mouse was skipping all over the screen and it was hard to get the pointer on the place on the screen I wanted to click. It got much worse when I added the second monitor (Viewsonic VA1912), and didn't want to move across from one screen to another at first.
I thought maybe it was the mouse, and put on my old Razor Pro mouse, which I know and love. Same problems. I switch USB ports still the same.
According to Viewsonic, both monitors are compatible, and I have used the VA1912 successfully on my old PowerMac. I thought it was odd that the number of screens affected the problem, which is why I am concentrating on the monitors, but I wonder if it isn't a problem with my Mac.
Any ideas?

Hello g:
Welcome to Apple discussions.
I suspect a faulty mouse. However, try two things first. Trash a preference file (com.apple.bluetooth.plist) and restart. Reset the PRAM:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1379
Second, after assuring Apple this really was a problem, i got the ultimate insult. "If you would like to lodge a technical support ticket, we will need your credit card. This call will cost you $150.00."
You see, I bought this thing four months ago. Apparently you only get a 90 day free call period. After that you're warranty is actually a cost per call scenario…..
There is no Apple charge for a warranty issue and the mouse has a one year warranty. Call Applecare back (or take it to a store if they have one close to you). Unless I am badly mistaken, Apple will replace the mouse and pay for shipping both ways (I had one fail a couple of years ago myself). Do identify the call as a warranty issue.
Barry

128-bit floating point numbers on new AMD quad-core Barcelona?

There's quite a lot of buzz over at Slashdot about the new AMD quad core chips, announced yesterday:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/10/0554208
Much of the excitement is over the "new vector math unit referred to as SSE128", which is integrated into each [?!?] core; Tom Yager, of Infoworld, talks about it here:
Quad-core Opteron? Nope. Barcelona is the completely redesigned x86, and it’s brilliant
Now here's my question - does anyone know what the inputs and the outputs of this coprocessor look like? Can it perform arithmetic [or, God forbid, trigonometric] operations [in hardware] on 128-bit quad precision floats? And, if so, will LabVIEW be adding support for it? [Compare here versus here.]
I found a little bit of marketing-speak blather at AMD about "SSE 128" in this old PDF Powerpoint-ish presentation, from June of 2006:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/PhilHesterAMDAnalystDayV2.pdf
WARNING: PDF DOCUMENT
Page 13: "Dual 128-bit SSE dataflow, Dual 128-bit loads per cycle"
Page 14: "128-bit SSE and 128-bit Loads, 128b FADD, 128 bit FMUL, 128b SSE, 128b SSE"
etc etc etc
While it's largely just gibberish to me, "FADD" looks like what might be a "floating point adder", and "FMUL" could be a "floating point multiplier", and God forbid that the two "SSE" units might be capable of computing some 128-bit cosines. But I don't know whether that old paper is even applicable to the chip that was released yesterday, and I'm just guessing as to what these things might mean anyway.
Other than that, though, AMD's main website is strangely quiet about the Barcelona announcement. [Memo to AMD marketing - if you've just released the greatest thing since sliced bread, then you need to publicize the fact that you've just released the greatest thing since sliced bread...]

I posted a query over at the AMD forums, and here's what I was told.
I had hoped that e.g. "128b FADD" would be able to do something like the following:
/* "quad" is a hypothetical 128-bit quad precision */
/* floating point number, similar to "long double" */
/* in recent versions of C++:                       */
quad x, y, z;
x = 1.000000000000000000000000000001;
y = 1.000000000000000000000000000001;
/* the hope was that "128b FADD" could perform the */
/* following 128-bit addition in hardware:          */
z = x + y;
However, the answer I'm getting is that "128b FADD" is just a set of two 64-bit adders running in parallel, which are capable of adding two vectors of 64-bit doubles more or less simultaneously:
double x[2], y[2], z[2];
x[0] = 1.000000000000000000000000000001;
y[0] = 1.000000000000000000000000000001;
x[1] = 2.000000000000000000000000000222;
y[1] = 2.000000000000000000000000000222;
/* Apparently the coordinates of the two "vectors" x & y       */
/* can be sent to "128b FADD" in parallel, and the following   */
/* two summations can be computed more or less simultaneously: */
z[0] = x[0] + y[0];
z[1] = x[1] + y[1];
Thus e.g. "128b FADD", working in concert with "128b FMUL", will be able to [more or less] halve the amount of time it takes to compute a dot product of vectors whose coordinates are 64-bit doubles.
So this "128-bit" circuitry is great if you're doing lots of linear algebra with 64-bit doubles, but it doesn't appear to offer anything in the way of greater precision for people who are interested in precision-sensitive calculations.
By the way, if you're at all interested in questions of precision sensitivity & round-off error, I'd highly recommend Prof Kahan's page at Cal-Berzerkeley:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/
PDF DOCUMENT: How JAVA's Floating-Point Hurts Everyone Everywhere
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/JAVAhurt.pdf
PDF DOCUMENT: Matlab's Loss is Nobody's Gain
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/MxMulEps.pdf

I just bought a new dell quad core 5i and HAVE DOWNLOADED THE TRIAL VERSION OF PHOTO SHOP - its Slow to open up a small file and equally as slow to print why?

HELP I just bought a new dell quad core 5i and HAVE DOWNLOADED THE TRIAL VERSION OF PHOTO SHOP - its Slow to open up a small file and equally as slow to print why?

Use Photoshop menu Help>system Info... use its copy button and paste that info in an append here.
Supply pertinent information for quicker answers
The more information you supply about your situation, the better equipped other community members will be to answer. Consider including the following in your question:
Adobe product and version number
Operating system and version number
The full text of any error message(s)
What you were doing when the problem occurred
Screenshots of the problem
Computer hardware, such as CPU; GPU; amount of RAM; etc.

Trying to load illustrator 6cs onto new mac and the old activation code for my ill cs doesn't work with it

Trying to load a downloaded version of illustrator 6cs onto new mac and the old activation code for my illustrator cs doesn't work with it. Do I need a new code or am I missing something? Same goes for my Photoshop cs.

you need your serial number.
if you purchased from or registered with adobe check your account, https://www.adobe.com/account.html

I own Photoshops Elements 10, Installed on my new Mac, mavericks, and it now asks for a reinstall. How do I reinstall?

I own Photoshops Elements 10, Installed on my new Mac, mavericks, and it now asks for a reinstall. How do I reinstall?

First of all, what is asking for a reinstall? Did you move PSE from another computer?

What to get: 3.7GHz quad-core or 3.5GHz 6-quad-core for the Mac Pro 6,1?

I'm thinking of getting the new Mac Pro 6,1. I want to keep the price down as much as I can. I work in, FCPX 10.1, Motion 5, Premiere Pro CC, After Effects CC, Speedgrade CC and DaVinci Resolve 11 lite? Sufficient to say I do a lot of rendering. I do not work with any 4K footage, just 1080P. So does anybody have any thoughts or experience with the MP 6,1 and do you think the 3.7GHz quad-core has enough power?
Thanks,
-Russ

There are two ways to get the 6-core:
One is to start with the entry for the 4-core (includes D300 graphics) and customize to 6-core processor only, adds US$500.
The other is to start with the 6-core (includes D500 graphics) and starts at US$1000 more.
If you buy the 4-core today, the processor can be third-party or do-it-yourself upgraded with an off-the-shelf processor later.
I expect others would advise you to buy as much graphics power as you can afford, but I think it has a smaller and diminishing return.

I've purchased the new i7 quad core macbook pro and the us-428 tascam is not recognised by logic. What can I do? Please advise

Hello there. I've purcahsed the new i7 macbook pro quad core and the us-428 tascam is not recognised by logic.
I try to open audio/midi setup but it doesn't give me the option to choose the us-428 tascam. Does anybody know if there is a new driver for this i7 quadcore machines for the us-428 tascams? Please advise

The hardware has been discontinued... the last driver is from 2007.
Go here.
http://tascam.com/product/us-428/downloads/
Get the 3.40 driver, unplug the 428 from the mac, reinstall the driver (over the top of the other one). Reboot the Mac, after it's settled give it a minute.... then plug the US-428 in.
I don't hold much hope of the driver being SL compatible but it's worth a shot.
Just be sure the unit is unplugged when you install the driver.
pancenter-

Dual core vs Quad Core for mild video and photo editing

I've owned PC's since ever and I'm now contemplating on coming over to the Mac world, my question is would a fully upgraded 13" MBPr Suffice for mild photo and video editing or should I try to shell out the extra cash for a lower end 15" with Quad-Core?
13" specs
2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
2199$
15" specs
2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
2599$

Sorry, yes it will suffice? if so how many years would I expect this computer to last me? (Sorry I'm really new to apple)

New Mac 8-Core

Have ordered a new Mac but I need some advice on the possibility of running an old Digi Studio 4 Midi Interface. Currently I'm using a GeeThree Stealth serial out from my aging DP G4. Does a MacPro have an internal modem, and if so is it kosha to install the stealth card?
If this is not possible are there any other options? I'd hate to lose all of my outboard synths and effects all in the name of progress.
Keith Moore

No matter what the computer is, midi interface will work, or if your current interfaceits is,nt compatable with mac-pro you could pick up a midi interface for under $40. I'll tell you this going with a 8-core mac/pro, there no better way to go about it, soon there will be sofware developers working with 8 core, very complex route though, but apple keep stepping the game up, and as the hardware is here already, the sofware will follow, some ppl today might say their no need for 8 core, because no one have seen sofware that support it, however if that was the case why would apple make such an amazing machine, who wants to miss-out on today,s technology yesterday is all history, good luck on your choice of purchase.
Fr. Blayzay.

Intel Quad Core for Premiere - is this a smart choice ?

Hi everyone,
I'm wondering if Intel's new Quad Core processor ( 2.4 Ghz ) will give a good boost to system performance over an older Intel 3.2 Ghz Ht chip.
I have seen test results where a 1.6 ghz dual core Intel processor has lost in speed tests vs regular 3.2 ghz chips ( not dual core )
So I'm puzzled,, will a Quad Core chip have any advantage when running Premiere ?
I'm hoping there is a clear cut answer here, and I look forward to any responses.
Thank you,
Dave.

Guys...
Before you all go out and throw a party...
My understanding is that with regards to CS3:
1. 32bit XP normally supports up to 2gigs of ram. 4gigs if you modify a line in the bootstrap file. But 4gigs is divided into 3gigs for apps and 1gig for system stuff.
2. 64bit XP is not supported.
3. 64bit Vista is not supported yet.
Here's the specs from Adobe:
- Intel® Pentium® 4 (1.4GHz processor for DV; 3.4GHz processor for HDV), Intel Centrino®, Intel Xeon® (dual 2.8GHz processors for HD), or Intel Core Duo (or compatible) processor; SSE2-enabled processor required for AMD systems
- Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional or Home Edition with Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (certified for 32-bit editions)
- 1GB of RAM for DV; 2GB of RAM for HDV and HD; more RAM recommended when running multiple components
Here's the memory specs for xp from Microsoft:
Operating systems based on Microsoft Windows NT technologies have always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space that describes 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual memory. The address space is usually split so that 2 GB of address space is directly accessible to the application and the other 2 GB is only accessible to the Windows executive software.
The 32-bit versions of the Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition, operating systems were the first versions of Windows to provide applications with a 3-GB flat virtual address space, with the kernel and executive components using only 1 GB. In response to customer requests, Microsoft has expanded the availability of this support to the 32-bit version of Windows XP Professional and all 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003.
Windows 2000 Memory Support. With Windows 2000 Professional and Server, the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB (identical to Windows NT 4.0, as described later in this section). However, Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports 8 GB of physical RAM and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supports 32 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family, beginning with Intel Pentium Pro and later.
Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. When the physical RAM in the system exceeds 16 GB and the /3GB switch is used, the operating system will ignore the additional RAM until the /3GB switch is removed. This is because of the increased size of the kernel required to support more Page Table Entries. The assumption is made that the administrator would rather not lose the /3GB functionality silently and automatically; therefore, this requires the administrator to explicitly change this setting.
The /3GB switch allocates 3 GB of virtual address space to an application that uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header. This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional virtual address space above 2 GB.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB, unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. The following example shows how to add the /3GB parameter in the Boot.ini file to enable application memory tuning:
However, knock yourselves out on getting the biggest baddest processors out there.
regards,

Quad core versus 8 core for final cut studio

Hi,
I have previously used adobe premiere cs3 for video editing and am now switching to final cut studio.
My question is: is it worth spending the 600 pounds extra to purchase an 8-core with 2.26 ghz processors as opposed to the 2.66 quad?
Apologies for the repetition...I know there have been similar questions already, and I have read the previous threads on this topic and also the barefoot reviews.
So far my understanding is:
1. It is not worth upgrading to the 2.93 quad as there is hardly any difference in performance
2. The 2.26 ghz 8-core is faster than the 2.66 quad for rendering, etc but slower for some other applications including photo editing.
3. Officially, there is no way of upgrading the processor of either once bought, although some "DIY upgrades" have been described.
But how does this translate into practice? I would like to hear from someone who uses final cut studio on a quad core - are you happy with the performance? And those with an 8-core - was it worth the extra money? I am planning to upgrade to the ATI HD graphics card, but still not sure on which computer model I should choose.
Thanks for your help

The hatter wrote:
you probably have read anything I could say or said already. have you asked in the final cut forum? have you considered the $2400 2008 2.8GHz 8-core?
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro
Oh that they were still readily available in the UK - I just missed out on one a couple of weeks ago - as soon as I hit Buy it had gone!
They've got an 8 core 2008 3.2 GHz for £2500 but I'm not convinced it's worth £1,000 more at this stage.
AC

Dual core vs Quad core for a Filmmaker?

Hi, I'm a 14 year-old filmmaker who really wants their next computer to be a mac mini. I am obviously on a tight budget being 14, so I was thinking just buying the standard dual-core processor. But for a filmmaker like myself, is it worth the extra $200 for my heavy-duty video-editing applications? I would use a mixture of Apple Motion 5, and the video-effects program Hitfilm Ultimate. I know quad is faster, but is it worth it for me?
Thanks.

"Hyperthreading" is the key. Hyper-threading enables each execution unit (or core, if you will) to process two threads (tasks) simultaneously. It can do this because not every instruction takes only a single instruction cycle. Sometimes instructions have to wait for a read from memory, which can take many clock cycles. Sometimes multiple instructions can be performed at once -- for example, a floating point addition and an integer multiplication, as long as both instructions already have their operands in registers and store the results in different registers. Hyper-threading enables each processor to handle multiple tasks by allowing one task to work while the other is waiting for a result, or allowing both instructions to be completed at the same time because they use non-conflicting resources.
So, two "hyperthreaded" cores work as fast as four without hyperthreading, or the difference in speed is so negligible, you wouldn't notice it. Since the Mac Mini Core i7 is also hyperthreaded, it works as well as dual quad cores, so if you need inudstry standard speed, then the Core i7 would be your best choice.
As I said though, I can take 1080p video from my Canon Vixia, and edit it with OnLocation or Premiere Pro, and render it with barely a drain on my processor cores (2 or 4). So far, the biggest vid file I've done was about 250Mb, which was about a ten minute shoot. If you're going to work with 2Gb and up, then I'd definitely go with the Core i7 and max the RAM out to 16Gb.

New Mac-quad core or 8 core for youth club studio...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for